# Workplace Coaching

A collaborative, reflective, goal-focused relationship intended to unlock performance rather than instruct.

**Rests on:** Career Adaptability

*Business, Career and Human Factors · Talent Management*


## Why learn this

Coaching is one of the most powerful levers you have for developing people. Whether you lead a team, work in HR, or build AI systems that assist people, understanding coaching will help you: run better one-on-ones, design AI tools that coach rather than lecture, and know when to mentor versus coach. It unlocks further study in Talent Management and connects to Career Development and AI and Society — because coaching is where human development meets technology, and AI is starting to play a role in it.


## The intuition

Think of coaching as the opposite of telling. When you tell someone what to do — 'do it this way' — you are giving them a fish. They eat for a day. When you coach, you ask questions that help them find the answer themselves — you are teaching them to fish, and more importantly, teaching them to trust their own fishing skills. Coaching is not about transferring your expertise into their head; it is about drawing out what they already know (often they know more than they think) and helping them apply it to a specific goal. The coach does not need to be an expert in the person's field. A good coach is an expert in the process of thinking — in asking the right questions, in listening deeply, in helping the person clarify their own thoughts and actions. The outcome is that the person becomes more capable, more self-reliant, and more confident in their own problem-solving.


## An analogy

Imagine you are learning to ride a bike. A teacher might hold the bike, explain balance, and then push you off. A coach, on the other hand, walks alongside you. They ask: 'What do you notice about the bike when you lean left?' 'What might you do differently to stay upright?' They do not tell you to 'turn the handlebars right' — they ask questions that make you attend to your own balance, your own body, your own feel. After a while, you are riding on your own, and you have learned not just how to ride, but how to learn to ride anything new. The coaching relationship works because you feel safe to try, to wobble, to fall — the coach is not judging you, they are helping you reflect on your own experience. This analogy stops working when the goal is pure information transfer — if you have never seen a bicycle, a coach who asks 'what do you notice?' will get nowhere; you first need to learn basic facts. Coaching is for unlocking performance that is already latent, not for teaching brand-new basics from scratch.


## Definition

Workplace coaching is a collaborative, reflective, goal-focused relationship in which the coach asks questions to help the individual solve their own problems and unlock their own performance, rather than instructing them on what to do.


## How it connects

This sits at the heart of Talent Management, which is about attracting, assessing, developing, and progressing people. Coaching is one of the most direct ways to develop someone — it builds on the assessment (knowing their current strengths and gaps) and feeds into the practice of identifying and preparing employees to fill key future leadership roles when current holders leave or retire. It connects to the concept of Learning Agility: the speed and quality with which a person learns from experience, adapts to change, and applies new knowledge in different contexts — essentially, the ability to apply skills flexibly in new situations. Coaching accelerates this agility by creating space for reflection that turns raw experience into deep learning, which is essential for navigating an AI-rich world where roles evolve rapidly. The non-directive, asking-not-telling approach is a deliberate method, not just a nice-to-have; it works because people are more committed to solutions they generate themselves.


## The mathematics

There is no mathematics in coaching itself. Coaching is a human interaction, a structured conversation. The only numbers that appear are in measuring its effectiveness — did the person achieve the goal they set? That is arithmetic at most: comparing a starting score to an ending score. But the concept does not rest on any branch of mathematics. It rests on psychology and communication. You will not need a formula to coach well. What you need is a model of conversation: one person talks, the other listens, asks questions, and summarises what they hear. That is a loop — a repeated cycle — like a loop in a computer program. In fact, the coaching session can be seen as a loop: the coachee describes a situation, the coach asks a clarifying question, the coachee reflects, and this repeats until clarity arises. That loop is not arithmetic, but it is an iterative process — a sequence that repeats, converging on a solution, much like a numerical method does one step at a time.


## A worked example

```
Imagine two numbers: the coachee's current performance level, say 3 out of 10 on a specific skill, and their target, say 7 out of 10. That is the gap coaching aims to close. No complex math: just subtraction — 7 minus 3 equals a gap of 4.

Step 1: Current performance = 3   # A rating on a scale, from 0 to 10, where 10 is mastery.
Step 2: Target performance = 7   # The goal the person sets with the coach.
Step 3: Gap = Target - Current = 7 - 3 = 4   # This gap is the focus of the coaching. It is not a company-mandated number; it is the person's own goal.
Step 4: After 6 weeks of coaching, the person rates themselves a 6 out of 10.   # The progress is measurable — from 3 to 6 is a change of +3.

Result: The gap closed from 4 to 1 (7 target minus 6 current = 1). The improvement is 3 points, and the coaching was effective. But note: the numbers only tell you that progress happened, not how — the how is the process of asking questions and reflecting.
```


## Common misconceptions

**Coaching is the same as mentoring** — Coaching and mentoring are basically the same thing — an experienced person guides a less experienced person.

Mentoring typically involves the mentor sharing their own experience and giving advice — it is directive. Coaching is non-directive; the coach asks questions to help the person find their own answers. The coach does not need to be an expert in the person's field; the mentor usually is. In fact: Coaching is a distinct practice: it is non-directive, asking rather than telling, and focused on the individual's own capacity to solve their problem. Mentoring shares advice and experience; coaching draws out the other person's insight.

**A coach must be an expert in my subject** — I would never go to a coach who does not know my industry — how can they help me if they do not understand the technical details?

The coach's expertise is in the process of reflection and goal-setting, not in the content. They ask questions that help the coachee clarify their thinking — the coachee already has the content knowledge. The coach does not need to solve the problem; the coachee does. In fact: The value of a coach comes from their skill in listening, questioning, and facilitating reflection — not from knowing the coachee's field. The coach helps the coachee apply their own expertise more effectively. In fact, a coach from outside the field can avoid making assumptions.

**Coaching is like therapy** — Coaching is just a business-friendly word for therapy — you talk about your feelings and past and end up feeling better.

Therapy typically addresses psychological distress and heals past traumas. Coaching is forward-looking, goal-focused, and assumes the person is healthy and capable. Coaching sessions are structured around a specific goal and a time frame, not open-ended exploration of one's psyche. In fact: Coaching is a pragmatic, goal-oriented partnership. It is about performance and achieving specific outcomes, not about healing psychological wounds. If a coach notices deeper emotional issues, they will refer the person to a therapist.

**Coaching is telling people what to do** — A coach's job is to give me a plan and tell me exactly what steps to take to improve.

That is directive instruction or consulting. Coaching, especially the non-directive style, deliberately avoids giving answers. It trusts that the coachee has the capacity to find their own solutions, which builds commitment and self-efficacy. Telling someone what to do often meets resistance or is not owned by the person. In fact: The coach asks questions that provoke reflection, such as 'What options do you see?' or 'What is the real problem here?' They help the coachee generate their own solutions, which leads to greater ownership and lasting change.

**Coaching is a one-off conversation** — I had a great one-hour coaching session; now I am good to go. Coaching is just a good conversation.

Coaching is a structured process over time. A single conversation can be insightful, but sustained improvement comes from a series of sessions that build on each other — setting goals, taking action, reviewing progress, and adjusting. The relationship itself, built over weeks or months, is what underpins effectiveness. In fact: Coaching is a formal relationship, often involving regular sessions, clear goals, and ongoing accountability. The quality of the relationship — trust, rapport, confidentiality — is a core factor in its success. One-off conversations rarely create lasting change.


## In short

Coaching is a partnership where the coach asks, not tells. Its power lies in the relationship and the reflective process — it unlocks the individual's own capacity. It is goal-focused and time-bound, and it is a key talent-management tool for developing people in an AI-shaped world.


## Where this is used

Coaching shows up in AI in two main ways. First, AI systems are being used to coach people — whether it is an AI coach for salespeople, a virtual coach for managers, or a chatbot that asks Socratic questions to help a learner solve a problem. Second, coaching principles are being embedded into AI systems for human development, like adaptive learning platforms that ask questions rather than present answers. In large language models, for example, a system might be prompted to act as a coach — it asks the user questions to draw out their own thinking, rather than giving direct answers. That is a deliberate design choice: the model is fine-tuned on conversational turns where the AI asks questions, reflects back the user's words, and avoids giving advice. In applied machine learning, coaching is used in recommendation systems for learning paths: the system does not just recommend a course, it might ask the learner 'what is your goal?' and then help them choose — echoing the coaching loop of clarification and goal-setting. A developer building an AI coach would write a prompt like 'You are a coach. Ask questions to help the user clarify their goal. Do not give direct advice unless asked.' Then they would fine-tune the model on transcripts of human coaching sessions, and build a loop that escapes when the user says they feel clear. The library to reach for is a conversational AI framework like RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) to pull relevant coaching frameworks from a knowledge base, or an agentic system that keeps the conversation on track. The risk of doing this badly is that the AI becomes an instructor, not a coach — giving answers instead of drawing them out — which defeats the purpose. So a developer must carefully craft the system prompt and the fine-tuning data to stay non-directive. This is a real, current application: AI coaching tools claim to improve sales performance, leadership skills, and even mental health, and they rely on the same loop of questioning, reflecting, and goal-setting that human coaches use.


---

Read this on the web: https://basavapurushottam.com/learn-ai/workplace-coaching
